Dahlberg Britt, Barg Frances K, Gallo Joseph J, Wittink Marsha N
Department of Anthropology and Research Coordinator, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania.
Ethos. 2009 Sep 1;37(3):282-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01054.x.
Psychiatrists and anthropologists have taken distinct analytic approaches when confronted with differences between emic and etic models for distress: psychiatrists have translated folk models into diagnostic categories whereas anthropologists have emphasized culture-specific meanings of illness. The rift between psychiatric and anthropological research keeps "individual disease" and "culture" disconnected and thus hinders the study of interrelationships between mental health and culture. In this article we bridge psychiatric and anthropological approaches by using cultural models to explore the experience of nerves among 27 older primary care patients from Baltimore, Maryland. We suggest that cultural models of distress arise in response to personal experiences, and in turn, shape those experiences. Shifting research from a focus on comparing content of emic and etic concepts, to examining how these social realities and concepts are coconstructed, may resolve epistemological and ontological debates surrounding differences between emic and etic concepts, and improve understanding of the interrelationships between culture and health.
面对有关痛苦的主位模型和客位模型之间的差异时，精神病学家和人类学家采用了截然不同的分析方法：精神病学家将民间模型转化为诊断类别，而人类学家则强调疾病的特定文化意义。精神病学研究与人类学研究之间的分歧使“个体疾病”和“文化”相脱节，从而阻碍了对心理健康与文化之间相互关系的研究。在本文中，我们通过运用文化模型来探究来自马里兰州巴尔的摩市的27位老年初级保健患者的神经体验，从而弥合精神病学和人类学方法之间的差距。我们认为，痛苦的文化模型是因个人经历而产生的，反过来又塑造了这些经历。将研究重点从比较主位和客位概念的内容，转向考察这些社会现实和概念是如何共同建构的，可能会解决围绕主位和客位概念差异的认识论和本体论争论，并增进对文化与健康之间相互关系的理解。
